Table 1.
Associations between Indigenous primary health care centre (n = 135) characteristics and cervical screening among female clients (n = 3801) 1.
| Characteristic | Participating Centres n (%) |
Unadjusted Odds Ratio 3 | Adjusted Odds Ratio 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | ||
| Audit Year | |||
| 2005–2006 | 40 (30) 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2007–2008 | 37 (27) | 1.40 (1.08–1.81) | 0.96 (0.68–1.39) |
| 2009–2010 | 45 (33) | 1.04 (0.81–1.32) | 0.68 (0.47–0.97) |
| 2011–2012 | 77 (57) | 1.51 (1.22–1.87) | 0.88 (0.59–1.31) |
| 2013–2014 | 56 (41) | 1.26 (1.00–1.57) | 0.65 (0.41–1.04) |
| χ2(4) = 24, p < 0.001 | |||
| PHC Governance | |||
| Community-controlled | 37 (27) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Government | 98 (73) | 1.35 (1.17–1.56) | 1.04 (0.69–1.56) |
| χ2(1) = 18, p < 0.001 | |||
| Number of completed baseline and follow up audits | |||
| Baseline audit | 69 (51) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1–2 follow-up audits | 21 (16) | 1.33 (0.13–1.56) | 1.63 (1.28–2.07) |
| ≥3 follow-up audits | 45 (33) | 1.12 (0.96–1.31) | 1.86 (1.35–2.57) |
| χ2(2) = 13, p = 0.002 | |||
| Location Remoteness | Location (<500) 5 | ||
| Non-remote | 20 (15) | 1.00 | NR: 1.00 |
| Remote | 16 (12) | 0.95 (0.73–1.25) | R: 0.30 (0.28–2.60) |
| Very remote | 99 (73) | 2.15 (1.77–2.62) | VR: 1.09 (0.11–10.70) |
| χ2(2) = 105, p < 0.001 | |||
| Location (501–999) 5 | |||
| Service Population Size | NR: 1.00 | ||
| <500 | 66 (49) | 1.00 | R: 0.97 (0.45–2.11) |
| 501–999 | 24 (18) | 0.82 (0.68–0.97) | VR: 2.44 (1.16–5.10) |
| ≥1000 | 45 (33) | 0.41 (0.36–0.48) | |
| χ2(2) = 149, p < 0.001 | Location (≥1000) 5 | ||
| NR: 1.00 | |||
| R: 1.55 (0.90–2.67) | |||
| VR: 1.54(1.13–2.09) | |||
| Jurisdiction 6 | |||
| Northern Territory | 62 (46) | 1.93 (1.71–2.50) | - |
| Queensland | 48 (36) | 2.07 (1.61–2.32) | - |
| Other (NSW, WA, SA) | 25 (19) | 1.00 | - |
| χ2(2) = 64, p < 0.001 | |||
Notes: Abbreviations: 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; NR: non-remote; R: Remote; VR: very remote; NSW: New South Wales; WA: Western Australia; SA: South Australia. 1 Women are classified as having received a cervical screening test if a Pap smear is documented in the previous two years. 2 The percentages reported here represent the proportion of the 135 participating PHC centres that contributed audit records in each audit year. As centres may have participated in multiple audits (up to four), the total number of centres across audit years totals more than 100%. 3 Odds Ratio (Yes: No) of women receiving a PHC record of a Pap test in previous two years. 4 Adjusted for all centre-level variables in Table 1 and client-level variables in Table 2 using a multilevel logistic regression model. 5 Significant interaction between Location and Service Area Population size (NR: Non-remote, R: Remote, VR: Very remote). 6 Due to small cell sizes, NSW, WA, and SA were grouped into ‘Other’ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was not included in the multivariable model as collapsing the variable made it difficult to interpret.